FIDELITY BANK LTD VRS BENTUSI GH LTD AND 3ORS (CM/BDC/0155/2017) [2024] GHAHC 4 (22 January 2024)

FIDELITY BANK LTD VRS BENTUSI GH LTD AND 3ORS (CM/BDC/0155/2017) [2024] GHAHC 4 (22 January 2024)

Plaintiff failed to prove enforceability of the mortgage against the 4th Defendant due to absence of jurat and lack of evidence of consent. Plaintiff also failed to prove 3rd Defendant was a director or guarantor. However, Plaintiff's claim against 1st and 2nd Defendants was uncontested after their defence was struck out, entitling Plaintiff to recover the outstanding sum, interest, and costs from them only.

Citation
FIDELITY BANK LTD VRS BENTUSI GH LTD AND 3ORS (CM/BDC/0155/2017) [2024] GHAHC 4 (22 January 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff: Fidelity Bank Ltd.; 1st Defendant: Bentusi GH Ltd.; 2nd Defendant: David Baffour Awuah; 3rd Defendant: Aaron Baffour Awuah; 4th Defendant: Abena Fosua (substituted by Baffour Awuah and Kwaku Okyere)
Court
ghahc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
22 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Division) / Final Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff against 1st and 2nd Defendants only; claim against 3rd and 4th Defendants dismissed.
Legal Topics
Loan Recovery, Guarantee and Suretyship, Mortgage Enforcement, Burden of Proof, Directorship Liability
Source Language
eng
Banking Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Loan Recovery Guarantee and Suretyship Mortgage Enforcement Burden of Proof Directorship Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fidelity Bank Ltd.

Plaintiff

Bentusi GH Ltd.

1st Defendant

David Baffour Awuah

2nd Defendant

Aaron Baffour Awuah

3rd Defendant

Abena Fosua (substituted by Baffour Awuah and Kwaku Okyere)

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Division) / Final Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Existence and enforceability of surety mortgage against 4th Defendant
  2. 2 Whether 2nd and 3rd Defendants guaranteed the facility as directors
  3. 3 Plaintiff's entitlement to recover GH¢1,087,613.73 from Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove enforceability of the mortgage against the 4th Defendant due to absence of jurat and lack of evidence of consent. Plaintiff also failed to prove 3rd Defendant was a director or guarantor. However, Plaintiff's claim against 1st and 2nd Defendants was uncontested after their defence was struck out, entitling Plaintiff to recover the outstanding sum, interest, and costs from them only.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff against 1st and 2nd Defendants only; claim against 3rd and 4th Defendants dismissed.

Orders

  • 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay GH¢1,087,613.73 to Plaintiff.
  • 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay interest on GH¢1,087,613.73 from 21st February, 2017 to date of judgment.